Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mcashlv

Greenville County needs a tree ordinance

Recommended Posts

:angry: Greenville has some of the most beautiful old hardwood trees in America. Especially as you head north towards the Appalachians. It sickens me to see these imbecile redneck 'developers' being allowed to bulldoze huge tracts without saving even a single tree. In comparison Kiawah Island has a "tree ordinance" which states that any builder must get a 'tree survey' done of the subject property, and no tree over 6" in diameter can be cut without specific approval from the town, usually restricted to the actual building footprint, and often the building itself must be altered to save historic trees. Greenville is probably the best city in the south, and it is being carelessly developed just like all the others...out of sheer ignorance and stupidity (and probably corruption).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I totally agree with both of you. I just can't stand all of these hillbilly rednecks in county council tearing down all of these trees to build these big shopping malls that are going to just cause more traffic and more pollution. I mean look what the city has done to main street by adding trees; same goes for I-385. See how much better it looks with them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People in Greenville are opposed to it. THey don't wnat to be told what to do with their property. Its not developers so much as the individual property oweners. Upstate Forever has been working on this issue tirelessly and has faced much resistance on such a seemingly simple issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well guess what Spartan I live in Greenville and im with establishing a tree ordinance. And if you don't like the idea of a tree ordinance then you can move somewhere else then. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so certain Greenville County needs a "tree ordinance." I'd have to have a better definition of the sort of ordinance to which you are referring. Do you intend to direct land owners to plant so many trees per acre? Do you intend to prevent developers from removing trees unnecessarily? Do you intend to require developers to replace trees that they remove? All of the above? Some of the above? Other?

I'm certainly opposed to clear-cutting. Recently, several hundred acres between Watson Road and Foothills Road in Travelers Rest were absolutely raped of their trees. What was left behind is nothing short of a disaster area. It's a complete eyesore as well, and I'm certain it does nothing for the values of neighboring properties. The property that was clear-cut isn't even under development, either. It's simply been left aggrieved and "available," yet virtually treeless (unless you count the various underbrush trees that were run over and left broken and in piles). :sick:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...hillbilly rednecks...

Which is it? I always thought the two were mutually exclusive.

For the record, I am a native of West Virginia and was reared there for the first 15 years of my life; therefore, I would have to consider the use of "hillbilly" to be offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so certain Greenville County needs a "tree ordinance." I'd have to have a better definition of the sort of ordinance to which you are referring. Do you intend to direct land owners to plant so many trees per acre? Do you intend to prevent developers from removing trees unnecessarily? Do you intend to require developers to replace trees that they remove? All of the above? Some of the above? Other?

I'm certainly opposed to clear-cutting. Recently, several hundred acres between Watson Road and Foothills Road in Travelers Rest were absolutely raped of their trees. What was left behind is nothing short of a disaster area. It's a complete eyesore as well, and I'm certain it does nothing for the values of neighboring properties. The property that was clear-cut isn't even under development, either. It's simply been left aggrieved and "available," yet virtually treeless (unless you count the various underbrush trees that were run over and left broken and in piles). :sick:

Did you read my post? It refers to property owners or developers. No one should be allowed to indiscriminately clear cut old trees anywhere. I was born in G'ville, and have many relatives there, I am by definition a "hillbilly" and do not find the term offensive in the least. Greenville has one chance, and one chance only, only to do things right, otherwise it will be just another example of thoughtless greed and ignorance run amok. Careful conservation of the very qualities that make the upstate inherently attractive could make it a world-class place to live and will provide economic benefits undreamt of by the ignorant native population. And by and large, they are indeed ignorant and poorly educated, whether you find it offensive or not. The historic shame and principal defect of the South. Just ask any of the German engineers at BMW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read your post very carefully, yes. However, I am still not clear what you are suggesting the ordinance stipulate (or for whom). I think I get the gist of it. Forbidding indiscriminant clear-cutting of property does appear to be part of your proposed ordinance and it is definitely one part I would support 100%; however, I can't help but feel you're suggesting something that goes far beyond this. It would be great if you could provide specific details of items you would like to see covered in such an ordinance. Don't hesitate to be specific. I find this topic interesting and potentially very constructive, provided everyone can keep a cool head about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not all about citting things down. It also involves the requirement for commercial sites over a certain size to have trees in their parking lots to provide shade for customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to add about 25% to the cost of a home, then go ahead and push for a tree ordinance such as suggested. Every other community that has one that I've seen has seen their cost of homes go up dramatically. No thanks.

I sure wouldn't mind seeing some type of incentive for keeping trees in new developments but I don't want to pay for some bureaucrat to go around measuring trees and telling me what I can cut down and what I can't on private property. :sick:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not all about citting things down. It also involves the requirement for commercial sites over a certain size to have trees in their parking lots to provide shade for customers.

Some property owners will clear-cut and partially grade a piece of land prior to offering it for sale , in the misguided belief that this will make the property more "attractive" to a potential developer. I am not qualified to write a county ordinance, but the gist of the Kiawah ordinance is that no property can be clear-cut at all, and a tree survey is required prior to building, and approval by the council. And if there are plans to build, the existence of "historic" trees, or any tree over 6" in diameter, must be considered, and if possible, preserved. And God help you if you ignore this ordinance and carelessly cut down trees. In fact, Greenville County could benefit from another Kiawah institution--the Architectural Review Committee, who must review the plans of any proposed home or building , and consists of real architects, whose job it is to review, critique, recommend changes, and approve (or not) any plans prior to construction, based upon aesthetic and practical considerations. Yes, it costs more to do things this way, but the end result is worth it, and the expense to the property owners/developers could be mitigated by offering incentives such as property tax discounts equal to the costs of compliance, which would be relatively minor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to add about 25% to the cost of a home, then go ahead and push for a tree ordinance such as suggested. Every other community that has one that I've seen has seen their cost of homes go up dramatically. No thanks.

I sure wouldn't mind seeing some type of incentive for keeping trees in new developments but I don't want to pay for some bureaucrat to go around measuring trees and telling me what I can cut down and what I can't on private property. :sick:

Funny, the best places to live always seem to have such ordinances. Nobody at Kiawah or Hilton Head complains about it, and it preserves and increases property values. 25% extra cost? Maybe 1%. They only try to preserve trees outside of the building envelope, generally. Private property rights do not demand complete lack of restrictions, read some Thomas Jefferson. How would you like for me to open a crematorium or a rendering plant next door to your house? Why not, it's my damn property, and I'll do what I damn well please! I once saw a lot in Calabash clear-cut of 400 year-old live oaks to build a used-car lot that was in business for about 90 days before closing. The trees are gone forever too. What a shame, an utter, foolish waste. But hey, no damn bureaucrats innerfeerin' with my rites to despoil my own land!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the area we live in, I am sure you all have noticed that the terrain is often not very level, espcially in the more northern half of the county.

Land isn't cheap, it comes at a premium, and developers need to be able to use as much of it they can to make their projects worth while. Often that includes grading the site to make it flat. To grade a site you have to remove most of the trees, you can't fill in a hole or remove a hill when the trrees are still in place.

And it is great when you can svae some nice old trees along the borders of the property, but they may not even servive becuase the heavy machinery can damage the roots.

If trees are to be saved it should be done by some mild tax credits, but not required by law, that is just stupid. Anther idea, tax credits to developrs that move then, then move them back after grading, like they are doing on Wade Hampton accross from Target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there should be some form of incentive. I'm amazed at the amount of clear-cutting that goes on here. Even on level land. Six inch trees though seems a bit extreme. I would go for 12"-18" being the lower limit on trees to be considered. How old is a 6" tree? Maybe 25-30 years? Hardly historically significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there should be some form of incentive. I'm amazed at the amount of clear-cutting that goes on here. Even on level land. Six inch trees though seems a bit extreme. I would go for 12"-18" being the lower limit on trees to be considered. How old is a 6" tree? Maybe 25-30 years? Hardly historically significant.

Not even, we had to cut a 15-18 yr. old Maple at my home and it was at least 8 inches.

Next people will be wanting us to save the Kudzu and the Bamboo.

Don't get me wrong, I love trees. But I think what Duke Power has done to trees is wrose than what the developers are doing. Just look at Old Spartanburg Rd.; the Birches outside Silverleaf or the pines outside Sugar Creek Villas. What Duke Power has done is just plain wrong. Mutilating trees the way they do, in my opinion is worse than cutting them down.

Also, remeber all the up roar over the massive white oak cut down during a tree clearing at the N. E. corner of Suber and Wade Hampton? The news papers made a big deal about it, it was almost a champion tree. What they didn't tell you is that when it was cut down it was found to be rotten on the inside, that is what I have heard anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I would support one. I hate the site coming off of 385 on Woodruff Rd and you can see for miles because there's no trees. Just a bunch of ugly, generic, suburban shopping strips that can be seen through the hazy, dust and pollution. It's not a pretty site and it's quite honestly a shame and embarassing.

The County needs to look to the City of Greenville as an example in a lot of areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am myself am more opposed to a ban on cutting exsisitng trees down, I don't have a problem on incentives on planting new trees, I think any smart developer would include new trees in their plan. They should ban Bradford Pears Trees though, they are ugly, fragile, and stink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should ban Bradford Pears Trees though, they are ugly, fragile, and stink.

lol, I think that is something we can all agree on :shades:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should have a tree ordinance for new developments going up but not for home owners. However though if anybody remembers the big article in the Greenville Journal a few months ago about the values of having trees in your yard. It makes the value of your house go up more. Also i was born in g-ville and have lived in the same house my whole life and i love having the trees in my yard especially in the fall when their changing color. How can you be against that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love trees. They are attractive, and make areas feel more pleasant and settled. I am also perplexed at the number of neighborhoods built without any significant trees around. I personally wouldn't want to buy a lot/house that had been cleared of its trees. Makes no sense to me.

With that said, I don't think any government has a right to tell someone what they can do with their own, private property. Incentives are fine for developers, but when someone is paying their own money for land that is exclusively theirs, they should have the right to cut down (or leave) as many trees as they wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love trees. They are attractive, and make areas feel more pleasant and settled. I am also perplexed at the number of neighborhoods built without any significant trees around. I personally wouldn't want to buy a lot/house that had been cleared of its trees. Makes no sense to me.

With that said, I don't think any government has a right to tell someone what they can do with their own, private property. Incentives are fine for developers, but when someone is paying their own money for land that is exclusively theirs, they should have the right to cut down (or leave) as many trees as they wish.

What I have never understood is that you look at a entry level neighborhood, It could be 15 years old and you look at it, and not a single owner has yet to plant a single tree, discounting a few bradford pear trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If other HOA's are like my HOA, you can't plant anything without submitting a pile of paperwork and receiving express written approval from the HOA's ACC. :wacko:

I've actually got a poplar that I'd like to have removed and I'd like to replace it with a couple of maples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.